4.1 Article

Self-medication in Ophthalmology: A Questionnaire-based Study in an Argentinean Population

期刊

OPHTHALMIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 236-241

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2012.689076

关键词

Argentina; Cultural habits; Over-the-counter drugs; Self-medication; Survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify practices of self-medication in the treatment of ocular conditions and to identify a profile of patients who self-medicate. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive survey of patients, over the age of 17 years seen in our ophthalmology practice in Cordoba, Argentina. Self-medication was defined as the use of ophthalmic medicines which had not been prescribed by a health care specialist in the previous year. Results: The sample included 379 subjects, 162 males (43%) and 217 females (57%); mean age 46.8 years. Prior to looking for medical attention in our institution, 97 patients (25.6%) reported self-medicating. The most frequently employed products included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drops in combination with a vasoconstrictive agent (32%) followed by a combination of antibiotics and steroids (9%), however, 14% of patients did not remember the name or type of medication applied. A total of 31% of patients used drugs recommended by a pharmacist; 25% used drugs of their own choosing and 24% followed suggestions from a friend or family member. Only 12% of patients knew the drug's components and only 3% were aware of any possible side effects. There was no difference in behavior patterns related to educational level or age, however, there was a significant difference related to gender, with males misusing ophthalmic drops more frequently than women (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Patients commonly attempt to treat conditions that require ophthalmologic care by self-medicating with over-the-counter eye drops. Educational efforts to inform patients of the consequences of self-medication are necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据